Is there a relationship between plantar foot sensation and static balance, physical performance, fear of falling, and quality of life in hemodialysis patients?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This study was conducted to investigate the relationship between plantar foot sensation and static balance, physical performance, fear of falling, and quality of life in hemodialysis patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study involved 24 hemodialysis patients and 20 healthy volunteers. Light touch-pressure sensation (Semmes Weinstein Monofilament test kit), two-point discrimination sensation (esthesiometer) and vibration sensation (128 Hz diapason) were used to evaluate plantar foot sensation. Static balance was assessed by the one-leg standing balance test, physical performance by the Timed Up and Go test, fear of falling with the Fall Efficacy Scale, and quality of life with the Ferrans and Powers Quality of Life Index Dialysis Version. FINDINGS: There was a significant difference in plantar foot sensation, static balance, and physical performance of the patients compared to the healthy controls (P < 0.05). There was a strong correlation between static balance and physical performance with foot sensation in the hemodialysis patients (P < 0.05). There was also a strong correlation between static balance, physical performance, and fear of falling in hemodialysis patients (P < 0.05). The correlation between static balance, physical performance, and quality of life in the hemodialysis patients was strong (P < 0.05). DISCUSSION: The most important result of this study is that light touch-pressure sensation, vibration sensation, two-point discrimination sensation, static balance, and physical performance, all of which involve the activity of cutaneous sensory receptors on the sole of the foot, are reduced in individuals who undergo hemodialysis. The findings of this study suggest potential rehabilitation strategies that could be applied to this patient group.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".